It's early for deep comparisons, but still some players may know already:
Is there any different style or feel when playing one species versus another?
While there's bound to be some overlap (i.e., most will engage in trade, most will want to expand, etc.) with the species, do the empires have different objectives that make playing them ...different? Say, for example, because one empire wants top-notch research, another has to keep its population expanding, a third's xenophobic...?
Just asking. Maybe someone's had this feeling "Yeah, this is how a cannibalistic reptilian starfaring empire would act"...
Lol, yes actually. I played both the Kiadians and Arkdanians, and while they are almost the same in terms of talents, one can colonize ocean planets right off the bat and makes friends with amphibian races, instead of humanoid ones. My Kiadian game (or however you spell it) had a widely distributed empire, but made up lots of free tech from colonizing Kiadian splinter colonies, and made a lot of friends amoung the humans and other kandian empires, plus those blue chicks. By contract, my Arkdanian empire was more compact and made a lot of money off Arkdanian splinter colonies but only a few friends diplomatically.
Also, Kiadians have super ECM while Ackdarians have faster ships. I've found I prefer the latter for running away from monsters and chasing down pirates. But I do miss all of the free tech I was getting as an egg head. And for some reason I found fewer monuments in my Ackdarian game.
Ackdarians are the seal people, btw. I wish they gave tech bonuses when you colonized them, instead of cash.